Gopi Manjhi @ Gopi Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52073 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2012 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya ====================================================== GOPI MANJHI @ GOPI MANDAL Son of Sajju Manjhi @ Sarju Bhuiya Resident of Village - Piparghatti, P.S.- Sherghati, Distt.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dharmesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 31-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in a case registered under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, six accused persons on two motorcycles committed loot at the shop of the informant. It is stated that the accused looted Rs.8,000/ in cash, Nokia mobile phone besides other articles given in detail in the F.I.R. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. was registered against six unknown. The name of the petitioner transpired in course of investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Santosh Kumar. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner who is in custody since 27.6.2021 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52073 of 2021(3) dt.31-03-2022 2/2 investigation in the case has concluded. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial.
Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, it transpires that in a case of the year 2012, the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Santosh Kumar and chargesheet was submitted against the said Santosh Kumar on 20.5.2012 itself. The petitioner after having absconded for nearly nine years is in custody since 27.6.2021. Further, arms and ammunitions etc. were recovered from the house of the petitioner. In the facts of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T